No Mutants Allowed - Glittering Gems of Hatred, Part 3

February 14th, 2007, 04:54

The third part of NMA&#39;s Glittering Gems of Hatred editorial is up, with this part arguing for a Fallout 3 that stays "true" to the franchise:

One should reconsider the possibilities of Fallout 3 to the gaming world. Instead of churning out more of the action-RPG first-person shiny factors we&#39;ve seen repeated ad nauseam (their qualities not withstanding), Fallout 3 should stand out and offer a return to pen and paper CRPG values that made the original a great game. Bethesda should not try to rehash an existing game in a different mold and take the risk of finding a fan base amongst people who think the originals were boring. Fallout 3 should offer something we haven&#39;t seen in the CRPG world for years, something nobody else is doing. In taking a step back, it would make a leap forward.

His main point seems to be that devs say: "TB is old, RT is new and innovative" (to use his favourite word). He attempts to show that neither are really Old, New, or Innovative, but rather have been part of computer gaming since its inception!! This is a valid point. He also states that Fallout is an attempt to duplicate tabletop gaming, which HAS to be TB, and therefore F3 needs to be TB. While I tend to side with him on wanting it to be a TB game, his claim is open to contention. Somewhere I have a side quest on this topic, once Dhruin get around to posting it!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
While I tend to side with him on wanting it to be a TB game, his claim is open to contention.

Which part of it?

1. Fallout 3 "has to be"? That's obviously open to contention, the word "has to" is fairly meaningless there. But the franchise loyalty thing was covered earlier.
2. Fallout 3 is meant as an attempt to duplicate pen and paper? Not open to contention. From Tim Cain: "We'd like to think the computer version will be as close as you can get to playing GURPS, short of playing GURPS." here
3. Is it open to contention that this necessitates turn-based combat? I don't see how. GURPS is an action-point turn-based combat system, translating it into realtime would be the long way around

PS: also, after the ribbing Dave Gaider gave me on the Codex over finger-pointing, I avoided "devs say". There is no solid "they" that "say" something, it's just market directions, based on what "people" think is profitable

The TB part is open to contention. It could be argued that the game could still work as a RT (perhaps with pause) game instead of being TB, and still meet enough criteria to be considered a 'real' Fallout. I'm not saying that I believe that, but obviously some do and they are willing to argue their PoV, thus we have 'contention'. Let's not split hairs, there is plenty of contention over this game, and I was only trying to summarise your main points. I WANT an iso/TB Fallout!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
The TB part is open to contention. It could be argued that the game could still work as a RT (perhaps with pause) game instead of being TB, and still meet enough criteria to be considered a 'real' Fallout.

A system like the tactical view in Hidden & Dangerous 2 could work quite well for squad (party) based combat. Pause, examine the combat arena from a zoomed out perspective, queue up orders for the party and un-pause. H&D 2 could actually be played like a turned based game on some missions despite being a FPS, it was very adaptable to individual playing style. Unfortunately poor squad AI marred the experience, but that doesn't mean the concept can't work.

Originally Posted by Corwin
The TB part is open to contention. It could be argued that the game could still work as a RT (perhaps with pause) game instead of being TB, and still meet enough criteria to be considered a 'real' Fallout. I'm not saying that I believe that, but obviously some do and they are willing to argue their PoV, thus we have 'contention'. Let's not split hairs, there is plenty of contention over this game, and I was only trying to summarise your main points. I WANT an iso/TB Fallout!!

It's really hard to argue with people who as soon as you mention non turn based start calling you a f*cktard and *sshole who is too stupid to live. I think the whacked out hardcore Fallout fans (the ones who though Fallout 2 was barely acceptable) will not be satisfied no matter what.

Originally Posted by MudsAnimalFriend
A system like the tactical view in Hidden & Dangerous 2 could work quite well for squad (party) based combat. Pause, examine the combat arena from a zoomed out perspective, queue up orders for the party and un-pause. H&D 2 could actually be played like a turned based game on some missions despite being a FPS, it was very adaptable to individual playing style. Unfortunately poor squad AI marred the experience, but that doesn't mean the concept can't work.

There have been a number of either pausable real time or hybrid turn based/real time systems that work quite well. There's even one non-RPG Fallout game that had something like that though its mere mention causes seizures among some rabid Fallout fans.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
Uh, no it's not. I play GURPS nearly every week and have done so since before it came out (my group playtested it) and it does not use and never has used action points. Nor is GURPS a "combat system".

"has" instead of "is", sorry.

I must be confused then, I must admit I'm not a big GURPS player. In that case; SPECIAL uses action points.

Action points are an odd mechanics anyway, very un-pen and paper. Makes for an interesting debate, then.

It's really hard to argue with people who as soon as you mention non turn based start calling you a f*cktard and *sshole who is too stupid to live.

It's also really hard to argue with people who don't read the article that the topic is about. Please change this. Your "satisfied no matter what" point has been disproved by history.

There have been a number of either pausable real time or hybrid turn based/real time systems that work quite well. There's even one non-RPG Fallout game that had something like that though its mere mention causes seizures among some rabid Fallout fans.

From the article you refuse to read:

In December 2000 the demo for Fallout Tactics was released (ref). Again we will have to use Miroslav for reference; "I won't speak much about the demo right now, as I'm busy playing the damn thing It's looking good. Continuos Turn Based mode is what I was eagerly waiting for, and it proved great!" Some critiques were brought up on the original forums, quickly adressed by Tony Oakden (Tactics producer), mostly to point out that this was, in fact, a pretty rough demo.

(…)

Important to note that while the RT/TB-combination was highly controversial (people feared too much attention would be paid to the RT-version, thus making TB unbalanced, much as happened to Tactics) and rumored to have multiplayer coop (again much like Tactics), the response of a vocal part of the Fallout fanbase to Van Buren was critical, especially when debating with the devs, but in general the Fallout fanbase was excited and looking forward to the game.

It's going to be real hard talking to you if you're just going to spout misinformation.

Given that I have read all 3 articles why do you keep saying I haven't read them? I disagree with a number of points in them AND the community on NMA wasn't open to discussion without resorting to childish name calling.

There are a lot of Fallout fans who hate Fallout Tactics. There really are. Even the article says that mentioning anger, disappointment and betrayal: "the anger was about fur-covered deathclaws first and about the quality of the game second". See?

How can I be "disproved by history" in my own opinion about a future event? I really do think that and history can't disprove that I think that except in some weird logic from another dimension.

Before you accuse people of "spouting misinformation" behaps you should look in a mirror. Especially after making it look like Tim Cain was saying something about GURPS and Fallout 3 (in 1996?) and then misrepresenting GURPS.

@Bill, congrats dude! I love when you throw facts at this person to throw off his statements. The author is posting passionate diatribe but it has very little accuracy, as your rebuffs so clearly point out. Be careful though. He may use an Occam's Razor statement at you.

@bjon045, if you read the whole 3 pages of that fan-rant you'll find it full of circular thinking. The guy should have organized his thoughts and then posted a one page article instead of repeating the same statements ad nauseum.

I'll give the guy credit for one thing: he's passionate about old Fallout. I can't imagine being passionate, for such a long period of time, about so small a thing as a game, but there you go. I save my passion for my wife

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
Given that I have read all 3 articles why do you keep saying I haven't read them?

Because you repeat points that have been proven wrong without citing any evidence to back up those points. rpgnut can make spurious, unfounded statements about "little accuracy", but the article clearly puts in citations for its history.

There has been a lot of valid criticism of the article, but a lot of unfounded criticism too. If you're going to state things that contradict, then back them up

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
I disagree with a number of points in them AND the community on NMA wasn't open to discussion without resorting to childish name calling.

I can't recall you post on NMA. Different nick?

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
There are a lot of Fallout fans who hate Fallout Tactics.

There are also a lot that don't. NMA does have a Tactics game help and modding forum, yes? People still post there, yes?

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
How can I be "disproved by history" in my own opinion about a future event?

"It's really hard to argue with people who as soon as you mention non turn based start calling you a f*cktard and *sshole who is too stupid to live." = a future event?

"I think the whacked out hardcore Fallout fans (the ones who though Fallout 2 was barely acceptable) will not be satisfied no matter what." = disproved by history. Unless you think the pixies transformed the Fallout fanbase between Van Buren and now.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
I really do think that and history can't disprove that I think that except in some weird logic from another dimension.

Are you saying opinions can't be disproved, aka wrong?

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
Before you accuse people of "spouting misinformation" behaps you should look in a mirror.

Damn, I'm devilishly handsome!

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
Especially after making it look like Tim Cain was saying something about GURPS and Fallout 3 (in 1996?)

When you look at how the market works with this mentality, it can be noted that several isometric and turn-based games of different genres have had significant success in recent years. The success of these games suggests that claims of "innovation" to justify the first person view is nothing more than the industry favoring a trend it deems popular, for financial security. That is not being innovative, but just being trendy.

This statement sums up the situation perfectly and if you ask me, truer words have never been spoken. Both turn-based and real-time games predate Fallout by a long ways. Turn-based vs. real-time has absolutely nothing to do with technology, and real-time or 1st person isn't any more innvoative than turn-based. It's incredible how many people mindlessly swallow that idea though.

its just a game. I'm sure bent will do their best. I have no high expectations but lets give them a chance to show us if they are worthy. Besides If bent didn't pick up fallout lisence..we may not even see a new fallout game.